This was one of the first thoughts I had too, lol. Surely if this has the slightest sign of a pulse left then it potentially could happen with HS2. It would become one of the region's hottest property assets. There'd be no better way to mark the arrival into Manchester then one of the country's tallest buildings looming over the terminal station; a brilliant bookend to the Shard in a sense. We were robbed with not getting Piccadilly tower, I hope we get something of its mass and calibre (if not taller!) for this site that would be a beacon for the city visible from across the region, a real advocate for Manchester-London business.

What difference would building one of the country’s tallest buildings virtually on top of the station make, in comparison to building it on the NOMA site for instance? Absolutely nothing. In fact in all likelihood, most visitors would completely miss it, straight into Piccadilly and out the back and not see a thing, just the bottom of a building.

What difference would building one of the country’s tallest buildings virtually on top of the station make, in comparison to building it on the NOMA site for instance? Absolutely nothing. In fact in all likelihood, most visitors would completely miss it, straight into Piccadilly and out the back and not see a thing, just the bottom of a building.

I think you might just see Piccadilly Tower as you enter the city via HS2. Especially when it's basically right on top of you.

What difference would building one of the country’s tallest buildings virtually on top of the station make, in comparison to building it on the NOMA site for instance? Absolutely nothing. In fact in all likelihood, most visitors would completely miss it, straight into Piccadilly and out the back and not see a thing, just the bottom of a building.

Meh... I had stood on a rainy platform 13 numerous times and thought "wouldn't it be fantastic with a 200 metre right over the station". A lot of people, particularly from London, think provincial cities are all dead industrial wastelands. Put a 200m tower on entering Piccadilly and the ignorance vanishes.

Beetham Tower had a similar effect. It was a shock for many southerners who are use to London to see a provincial, Northern city with a genuine skyscraper. Southerners are a bit fickle like that.

I actually like the 'staggered oblong' design of Piccadilly Tower.

__________________
"You design for the present, with an awareness of the past, for a future which is essentially unknown."

The hulking impenetrable mass of Piccadilly means that access isn't great and therefore the land less attractive, hence why I asked the question about if the Metrolink stop was accessible from Sheffield Street - this sort of thing is crucial in lifting an area.

It's the case in a lot of cities that you tend to have no-man's land on one side of a major station.

Is there any decent news on this project around at the moment? Judging by how this thread isn't really about the tower anymore I assume this is dead and buried...such a shame, Manchester likes to throw away opportunities but this was painfully close to fruition. A couple of iconic buildings short of being a world class city.

__________________"A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction"

It never ceases to surprise me that with transport links being so important and all, the area north-ish of Piccadilly Station has remained a wasteland for decades. Does anybody know why?

Most likely due to the land speculators who bought up single plots in anticipation of Manchester being successful in its Olympic bid back in the 90’s as discussed here a few weeks back.

When you consider much of the larger post-bombing development in Manchester (fully endorsed and co-funded by MCC), it has revolved around large land holdings both by itself & public bodies as well as other larger companies.

Spinningfields (old Art School/University sites bought up by Allied London around 1997)

I understand that the city centre redevelopment post-bombing (1996) involved a lot of coercion and compulsory-purchasing aided by central government to make it happen. Something the likes of Eric Pickles and the Coalition are evidently not inclined to do these days across the wider city to deliver necessary improvements i.e. London Road Fire Station.

The same issues of absentee landlords have stymied the redevelopment of Ancoats especially.

Uncertainty over future rail redevelopment (most recently with HS2) and pre-election 2010 carrots from New Labour over potential "Mayfield Civil Service Quarter" haven’t helped development around here either.

Also the further east you go the closer you are to Manchester's old coal fields; fine for social housing but less appealing for those wanting value and long term investments.

__________________
Nothing dates faster than Man's vision of the future

I wrote this piece recently, from a planning report on Gateway House which contained an interesting paragraph.

Realty set for Gateway nod
By Simon Binns | Office | 10-01-2013 | 16:45 | Print
Realty Estates' proposed redevelopment of its 150,000 sq ft Gateway House office building in Manchester is likely to be approved by the city council next week.

The £35m scheme, which would see Max Apartments operate 182 serviced flats in the 1970s building attached to Piccadilly Station, is recommended for approval by the council's planning committee.

The plans, drawn up by Hodder and Partners, also include the construction of a new three-storey gym and a new eight-storey office building attached to Gateway House.

The proposals have drawn one objection, however, from an unnamed adjacent landowner, understood to be Irish developer Ballymore, which owns a site on Ducie Street and Store Street.

That site was earmarked for the 187m Piccadilly Tower, but the scheme has been on hold since 2008.

At 58 storeys, the Woods Bagot-designed tower would have been the tallest building in Manchester and when plans were first unveiled, it was said to have a development value of £220m.

The planning report says the objector believes "an application which involves both sites would make a significant contribution to this major gateway to Manchester and that a joined up masterplanned approach to the two sites would provide more beneficial outcome to the city".

The objector also argues that "to approve this application in isolation would potentially result in a lost strategic opportunity which would create the opportunity to plan Grade A Manchester City office accommodation".

Thanks Longripple. I see the Mayfield thing. It says it's owned by BRB Residuary, who seem to still own it. But wiki says "The scheme is led by "Mayfield Manchester", a joint venture company between Ringset, part of the Wrather Group, and Panamint; the company owns around 90% of the land around the station as of 2008, but do not own the station itself." This isn't actually the area I was thinking of, but it's close enough to Piccadilly Station to fit the bill. Derelict for decades, because it's an "investment". That sort of thing seems to be a bit more prevalent than I realised.

Thanks, tellmeastory. I saw that on the thread, and thought it a bit odd to object to somebody else's application to buff up an existing pretty-good building. I thought why not just contact them?

It never ceases to surprise me that with transport links being so important and all, the area north-ish of Piccadilly Station has remained a wasteland for decades. Does anybody know why?

Classic case of being the wrong side of the tracks, literally. The elevated nature of the tracks and the station itself form a perfect barrier between the city centre proper and this area. A walk down Fairfield St (earphones out / wits about you) will tell you all you need to know about why there are no willing investors here.
Nothing will happen in the foreseeable future either with the HS2 station earmarked. No-one will go near it (apart from land bank speculators) until construction work actually begins (in how many decades?)

I took a bit of a tour courtesy of google maps and street view. Fairfield Street was particularly grim, but I don't think it's just a wrong-side-of-the tracks thing. It's a dereliction thing too. Though the Travis Street stretch under the tracks doesn't help - it looked like I'd need a baseball bat for comfort. But as you sweep round Sheffield Street things are a bit better, and pretty nice when that turns into Boad Street near the Piccadilly tower site. Lot of opportunity round here. Or should be if transport links to London are as important as people say.

I took a bit of a tour courtesy of google maps and street view. Fairfield Street was particularly grim, but I don't think it's just a wrong-side-of-the tracks thing. It's a dereliction thing too. Though the Travis Street stretch under the tracks doesn't help - it looked like I'd need a baseball bat for comfort. But as you sweep round Sheffield Street things are a bit better, and pretty nice when that turns into Boad Street near the Piccadilly tower site. Lot of opportunity round here. Or should be if transport links to London are as important as people say.

Travis Street isn't nice from what I remember and some of the adjacent streets are particularly dodgy at night. I think I remember seeing prostitutes around there once, the general feeling is unpleasant, especially at night!

Travis Street isn't nice from what I remember and some of the adjacent streets are particularly dodgy at night. I think I remember seeing prostitutes around there once, the general feeling is unpleasant, especially at night!

you will see street-girls around there every night; but that is true for most mainline stations.

But if this side of Piccadilly gets redeveloped; the sex-workers here will tend to join their sisters around Mayfield. They need streets that punters cars can cruise in their cars.